Foresight Study ICT R&D Trends in India

Foresight Study ICT R&D Trends in India
Mary Mathew Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore for EUROPEAN COMMISSION, BRUSSELS
Foresight Study ICT R&D Trends in India

Mary Mathew Indian Institute of Science Bangalore 560012 Email: mmathew@mgmt.iisc.ernet.in
FOR
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, BRUSSELS

Project no. 248867
SYNCHRONISER
Synchronising the Research Policy Dialogue to the Indian Dimension
SYNCHRONISER PROJECT MANAGER Katja Legia, TESEO, Brussels WORK PACKAGE LEADER Kay Matzner, Fraunhofer, Magdeburg
June 2012
Foresight Study, June 2012
Acknowledgements
As the SYNCHRONISER team and on behalf of Katja Legia and Kay Matzner, we thank the European Commission for this opportunity to conduct such an important study. Foresight studies are important to understand and course correct economic growth. We had an opportunity to do this for Indian ICT R&D. We thank TESEO and its members, especially the very visionary Mauro Bianchi for all their support. We thank the three reviewers and our Project Coordinator Mr Alvis Ancans for their detailed advice, critique and suggestions to improve this study and its reporting. Most gratefully, we thank the visionary sample of CEOs, CTOs, Founders, and Professors, who so graciously gave us time to understand their mental models when they describe ICT R&D trends for India. We also thank the experts who participated in the panel discussions and the venture capitalists who helped us validate our findings. We thank all partners of the SYNCHRONISER, Surbhi Sharma, Sourabha and Sandhya from EIRC, Bangalore, Jasjit Singh and Mahesh Kulkarni from CDAC, Delhi and Pune, Amit Bansal from STPI, Delhi and Julian Sesea from ROSE Vision, Spain for their contributions to this report. We thank the research team that played various roles on this study. We personally thank Dr. Gautam Rangan, Pratheeba S., Rejin Issac, Farah Ahmed, Bharathi T.G., Annapoornima Koppad, Komala, Pranav P.T., and Sushantika S., for all their support. Lastly, we thank the Indian Institute of Science and specific members namely, Manivanan, Salim Ahmed, Bhanumathy, and Umashankar, who helped with the administrative aspects of this study. Mary Mathew Katja Legia Kay Matzner
Table of Contents
1.0 Abstract............................................................................................................................................................6 2.0 Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................7 3.0 Introduction. ................................................................................................................................................10 4.0 EU-India Research Collaboration.............................................................................................................11 5.0 Purpose of this Study....................................................................................................................................14 6.0 Literature Review...........................................................................................................................................15 7.0 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................17 7.1 Design of the delphi interview.................................................................................................................19 7.2 The visionary sample................................................................................................................................ 121 8.0 R&D Trends for Indian ICT........................................................................................................................26 8.1 Core technology development: Round 1...........................................................................................26 8.2 Sectoral applications of ICT: Round 1..............................................................................................27 8.3 Socio-economic trends that will govern Indian ICT R&D in the next 2, 5 and 10 years: Round 1.....................................................................................................29 ................................................................................................................................31 8.4 Consensus: Round 2. ............................................................................................35 8.5 Venture capitalists view points: Round 3. 8.6 Visionaries views on the JWG List........................................................................................................36 9.0 Collaboration...............................................................................................................................................38 9.1 Knowledge and intentions of Indian visionaries on EU..................................................................38 9.2 Suggestions from Indian visionaries......................................................................................................42 10.0 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................47 11.0 Bibliography. ................................................................................................................................................51 12.0 Annexure.......................................................................................................................................................53 12.1 Annexure 1: R&D trends world-wide in ICT Targeted opening in WP2011-12...............................................................................................53 12.2 Annexure 2: FP6 Projects in ICT in India..........................................................................................54 12.3 Annexure 3: FP7 Projects in ICT in India..........................................................................................55 12.4 Annexure 4: Budget distribution for ICT 2011-2012 in EC.........................................................57 12.5 Annexure 5: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 1..............................................................59 12.6 Annexure 6: Sample List.........................................................................................................................61
1.0 Abstract
This report aims to provide insights that will help enhance the on-going research partnership in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) R&D between India and European Union (EU) member states. The European Commission (EC) is keen on enhancing the partnership with India in the ICT R&D domain, via the Framework Programmes (FP). This report also aims at augmenting the goals of the Joint Working Group (JWG) set up to identify the technology priorities areas common to India and EU member states such that their collaborations be accelerated. This report describes results of a foresight study on the ICT R&D priority areas which India will work upon in the next 2, 5 and 10 years. The delphi method was used. Three rounds were conducted to understand whether the technology priorities identified in the first round were valid and accurate. Thirty visionaries were interviewed to obtain the results reported here. Visionaries were carefully selected based on criteria described in the report. From the study, the core technologies, sector technologies and socio-economic factors that are critical to Indias ICT R&D decisions have been identified. Furthermore, the study helps gain insight into the extent of awareness the visionaries possess of the EU ICT R&D activities, the European Commission calls, experience in EC proposal writing, and JWG priority areas. Most visionaries intend to collaborate with the EU. Measures needed to better the relationship between India and EU member states were described in this report. Limitations of using the delphi method in the context of developing countries is also discussed.
2.0 Executive Summary

ICT collaboration is one of the most important topics of discussion in several nations. This report aims at providing insights that can enhance collaborations between EU states and India in the area of ICT R&D. ICT is a key driving force of economic and technological growth in India. In the past two decades, Europe has demonstrated a keen interest on expanding their longstanding relationship with India in the ICT R&D space. Indian research partnerships via the European Commissions Framework Programme, with EU states are on going. To augment this partnership in ICT R&D, the European Commission has established an IndoEU ICT Joint Working Group consisting of policy makers, researchers and industry stakeholders, who will work together to identify mutually suitable topics for EU and India to collaborate on. The foresight study described in this report, identified priority areas in ICT R&D that India and the EU states can work upon together.The broader aim is to augment the EU-India political dialogue in the ICT domain, and most importantly, the mission of the ICT Joint Working Group. The study has identified Indian focus areas with regard to technology priorities in ICT R&D. It is envisioned that the data from this study, amongst others, will serve as a planning input for the European Commission, in order to identify technology priority calls for India. Thirty Indian ICT experts with an average experience of 20 years in the Indian ICT industry and academia were interviewed using the delphi method.The experts interviewed include 10 professors and 20 industry experts at the CEO and CTO levels. The industry experts were representatives of leading large companies and small and medium enterprises, including start-ups. These experts called visionaries in the study, provided insights into the technology priority areas India must focus on, and provided valuable suggestions to enhance EU-India collaboration. A total of 3 rounds were conducted using the delphi approach. The first round consisted of interviews with the 30 visionaries.These inputs were taken and analysed, and the priority list of technologies elicited. In the second round, round 2, two consensus meetings were held. These were panel discussions with a public audience and an expert panel who discussed the technology priority areas. There was a consensus with the audience and panel experts on the list of technology priorities in the area of ICT R&D. A third round namely round 3, was conducted with venture capitalists, whose goals are to typically invest in such priority areas. Round 3 aimed at understanding whether financiers will invest on these identified areas. There were two views that emerged; one was that they will invest only in some areas.The 7
second was that these priority areas were too generic and they will need more specific descriptions of ICT R&D to invest their finances on. The results of the foresight study can be describes R&D trends for Indian ICT. The results consist of six parts. First, are core technology areas in ICT R&D that India will focus on in the next 2, 5, and 10 years. The second, are sector specific application areas in ICT R&D. The third were certain socio-economic factors that India will consider when engaging in ICT R&D. The fourth is the results of the consensus round 2. The fifth one is the view points of the venture capitalists, round 3. The last and sixth part is the visionaries view on the Joint Working Group (JWG) list. The core technologies pointed out by the visionaries include (a) Internet access: allocation of bandwidth, last mile connectivity, convergence of mobile and internet technologies; (b) Networking technologies: large networked systems, machine to machine communication, cloud computing, wireless networks and smart networks; (c) Monitoring systems: sensors for measurement and remote diagnostics, integrated with wireless networks, generic and mobile devices; (d) Cloud Computing Applications and (e) Security algorithms for various systems and devices. The mobile phone is seen as a device of centricity. The sector specific areas were mainly healthcare and energy management. The following healthcare development areas were highlighted by the visionaries: Bioinformatics for better diagnostics, information management and retrieval; connectivity and networking of medical devices; smart medical systems with learning ability, patient monitoring, monitoring devices to capture and transmit data; security in data management systems; large storage systems and cloud computing; integration of medical data and monitoring systems with mobile and telemedicine. Several focus areas in energy conversion, generation and management were suggested by the visionaries: ICT for smart grids, solar panel electronics, solar gadgets, green devices with low power consuming displays, storage devices, and longer life batteries, e-Waste management, redesign of consumer goods electronics with energy and green consciousness are the important ones. There are many important areas of governance and education that India will invest in as per the foresight study: Governance related to land records, digitization, database maintenance, secure storage systems, person identification and tracking systems, transportation identification systems and RFID, banking identification; mobile based payment system, education and skills training using ICT and mobile 8
applications for education. Mention was also made about gamification, and the development of games with various applications. Some India specific societal and economic trends will govern ICT R&D in India. Indian researchers and technologists will be conscious of these goals. They include, low value (low cost) high volume products and services, consciousness of green computing, green devices and low energy consuming solutions, predominance of software over hardware solutions, conscious integration of rural consumers and language diversity. The study also ascertained the visionaries views and thoughts on the priority areas identified by the EU-India Joint Working Group. Technologies such as RFID, biometrics and smart cards were the endorsed list of technology priorities chosen by visionaries. Other major highlights of this study include the visionaries level of awareness about EU, their intentions to collaborate and suggested measures to improve EUIndia collaboration in ICT R&D. An important aspect that emerged clearly through the survey was that the visionaries who represent the Indian ICT diaspora were very positive to collaborate with EU member states both at the academic and industry levels. If the Indian ICT industry is exposed to the benefits of the EC funding opportunities, then the number of proposals will certainly go up from the Indian side.
3.0 Introduction
It is known for over hundred and fifty years that predicting the happening of events is an activity of estimates and guesstimates. There are only two methods that science uses in predicting.The first is a reference to past data in time series and the use of this data in predicting a future trend.The second method is preferred, when past data is unavailable to predict the future. In this second method, experts forecast predictions. Experts use their past experiences, gut feelings and mental models to say that a particular R&D area or technology is the one to focus on in the future. In this second method, there is an element of chance and possibilities of errors unless a sample of relevant and representative experts is used to describe the forecast. This process is easier done for a company than for a country or nation as a whole. Predicting what a country will do in the near future is a challenge. Describing predictions, Niels Bohr (1885-1962) adequately stated that, Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. Prediction nevertheless has benefits if done in an objective and unbiased manner. This is more so in developing countries where planning is not as sophisticated as it is in the case of developed countries like Europe. In developing countries, planning, adherence to planning, monitoring and evaluation is an evolving process. Developing countries often have to fire fight real life issues that are unexpected yet high priority, and thus, planning goes awry and needs to evolve changes in direction, constantly. According to Blind et al., 1999, the term foresight is used in the sense of outlook.This is not the same connotation as prediction which would be closer to forecast. Foresight takes into account that there is no single future. Depending on action or nonaction at present, many a future is possible, but only one of them will happen. Foresight in the Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) area poses special challenges. It is an area that is growing very fast, has a large number of players in its space, and has applications in a multitude of areas making its proliferation rapid and expansive. This being the case, what is new today need not be new in three months time. Estimations of future R&D trends are made by experts and it is assumed that these experts are aware of these changing trends in ICT. Despite the difference between forecast and foresight, in this report we request visionaries in India to provide foresight into what India will do in the next 2, 5, and 10 years.Whilst this involves a fair amount of prediction, this report prefers to take the title of foresight. Providing foresight into what a country like India will engage in with ICT R&D is fascinating not only because of the fact that ICT is currently a flagship technology area in India, but also because of the pervasive nature of ICT and what it can do to develop a country whose population is expected to equal China by 2025 (World 2025 Report). This foresight gets even more exciting because of the possible ICT R&D collaborations between India and EU member states, thanks to the futuristic funding activities of the European Commission. 10
4.0 EU-India Research Collaboration

ICT is currently the leading sector in R&D investments worldwide, emphasizing the importance of this sector. With a rapidly growing image that ICT has, the role of R&D in galvanizing this growth is imperative. A list of ICT areas typically invested worldwide is provided in Annexure 1. A wide range of technologies are mentioned in this Annexure meant mainly for high income and BRIC countries. These areas will have activities related to research projects, joint road mapping, awareness raising and dissemination for standardization activities (FP World Programme Orientation, Proposal, 2011-2012 p.26). The emphasis in India is shown to be in areas of: Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) and beyond, complex systems research, trust and security, embedded systems control and ICT for transportation. It is also noticed that developed countries world over invest in these areas. In EU alone, ICT is expected to be an important contributor to the 2020 goal of achieving R&D investments close to 3% of the European GDP (Turlea, et al, 2010). ICT is also seen employing more researchers than any other sector. Given the importance of ICT, EU sees the need for internationalization of ICT activity and partnership or collaboration with other countries in meeting its ICT R&D needs. Cooperation with developing Asia is seen as important, considering that Asia is becoming a competing base in development as well as a market for ICT services and products. Amongst the developing Asian giants, India is seen as an emerging force in ICT manpower. Rich in logic and mathematics, the software development skills of Indians are an asset of the country. Whilst R&D investments are not as high (in comparison to other countries) in ICT, a developing country like India poses as an important partner for Europe in meeting global challenges. The need for EU and India to collaborate for R&D is seen as critical by the European Commission. The aim is to pool in the strengths of various ICT experts of the two geographies. Given the win-win opportunity, today collaboration is seen as a better approach for social and economic progress. The European Commission puts aside investments in various thematic areas of ICT for cooperation with other countries. Some of these investments are also for cooperation between EU and India in projects related to ICT R&D. In the last two Framework Programme calls for the thematic area of ICT, India has been seen participating in collaborative projects with EU. Details of these collaborative projects are provided in Annexure 2 and Annexure 3. In FP6 and FP7, approximately 21 projects in R&D (including support action), were sanctioned between EU and 11
India. The areas of cooperation in ICT R&D were the following: e-Inclusion Mobile and wireless systems beyond 3G Software and services ICT for networked businesses ICT for environment risk management
Examples of Indian partners who participated on these ICT projects with EU were as follows: Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Tech Mahindra Ltd. Association of Intelligent Transport Systems India Tata Consultancy Services Center for Development andAdvanced Computing Indian Institute of Science Interactive Technology Software and Media Association International Institute of Information Technology, Bangalore Tata Sons Ltd. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Antrix Corporation Ltd. Amrita VishwaVidyapeetham The Energy and Resources Institute Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry Center for the Study of Developing Societies Resource Management Group GS1 Documentation Research and Training Center Indian Statistical Institute
12
Whilst there is evidence of cooperation between EU and India, the numbers and project statistics are expected to rise if the right promotion is made. Cooperation between two geographies is difficult to achieve when information about the nature of either one country is scarce and less understood. It is in this context that this India specific trend study was initiated. In the recent announcement for proposals (2011-2012), the European Commission appears to have a budget for the following areas. These areas are listed below so as to understand the technical terminology used by EU in describing ICT, an area that is constantly growing, loosing its boundary and difficult to classify as a family of sub technologies. Networking, computing and service infrastructure Cognitive systems, robotics Alternative paths to components and systems Technologies for digital content and languages Towards sustainable personalized healthcare ICT for low carbon economy ICT for enterprise and manufacturing ICT for learning and cultural resources Future and emerging technologies
More details of this budget are provided in Annexure 4.
13
5.0 Purpose of this Study

ICT is currently the leading sector in R&D investments worldwide.This importance is also seen from the list of ICT prevalent in different countries (Annexure 1). International cooperation between the European Commission and China and Brazil is growing. Greater incidence of cooperation and collaboration between India and EU is seen as possible. This study is aimed at obtaining information from experts who are experienced in the ICT sector and with the Indian industry landscape in particular. These experts are referred to as visionaries who can see into the future in a manner that others less skilled cannot. The need to identify what a developing country like India wants to focus on is seen as an important input to the European Commissions policy making.The policy being referred to here is about ICT R&D areas the European Commission will invest in, in the coming 2, 5 and 10 years. When the European Commission announces for proposals between EU and India they do so in specific R&D areas. Thus, the European Commission is keen on understanding what ICT R&D areas India will focus on in the next 2, 5, and 10 years. Knowing this information will help the European Commission design or re-design calls suitable for India and EU to work on jointly. Inputs from this study will help synchronize the European Commission calls of technology priorities with that of Indias ICT R&D needs. Such an input can help bridge greater collaboration and translate to incidences of collaboration between EU and India. This study is also aimed at augmenting the efforts of the Joint Working Group (JWG) consisting of members from the Indian government, mainly from the Department of Information Technology (DIT), New Delhi and the members of the European Commission. It is hoped that this report serves as an input to their efforts to strengthen the R&D collaboration between India and EU member states through the aegis of the European Commission.
14
6.0 Literature Review

There is much literature on various approaches to handle forecasting research. Most studies are on technology based forecasts (Loikkanen et al., 2009) and even ICT diffusion forecasts (Weber & Kauffman, 2011). Some of the research focused on forecasts for collaborations between countries (Santangelo, 2000, Dan and Xiao-na, 2009). The delphi method is one of the most popular ones in technology forecasts and much is written about the method (Linestone and Turoff, 1975). Reviews of the delphi method often show variations and modifications constantly made by researchers. These depend on the needs of the research problem being addressed and the cooperation of experts (Brancheau et al., 1996, Czinkota and Ronkainen, 1997, Hayne and Pollard, 2000, Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004, Ahlqvist, 2005). Others have clearly differentiated between forecast and foresight (Blind, 1999, Boutellier et al., 2007). With reference to classifications and definition of ICT, the best source appears to be the OECD. There are various ways that ICT is classified. The OECD classification, 2009 is one such important piece of literature to follow. Many delphi studies are seen focused on ICT and areas related to ICT, including e-commerce and ICT diffusion. However, there is little clarity on a clear definition of the spectrum of technologies that make up ICT. This may be true because of the all pervasive characteristic of ICT. According to Blind et al., 1999, by the 1990s it was said that technology foresight became an important exercise, subsequent to political changes and tighter national budgets in Europe (Blind et al., 1999). Ahlqvist in 2005, described a study in Finland that defined key technology areas and their impacts on professions. The method used in this study was that of the delphi with variations that were suitable for the research problem. A mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods was followed and 2-3 rounds of the delphi method were practiced. Ahlqvist identified a list of technology priorities and had the delphi visionaries verify them. The researcher also noticed a wave of the Bio Society emerging and described this in his paper. Hayne and Pollard in 2000, described a study they conducted using a modified version of the delphi method.They studied critical issues that Canada must address in the next 5 years with reference to Canadian information systems personnel.They found building a responsive IT infrastructure, improving IS project management practices, planning and managing communication networks as critical in 1999.
15
Around 2000, Santangelo found ICT to be leading in strategic technological partnerships in European ICT. This pattern was noticed since the 1970s in the USA. It was felt that partners with similar technological capability could absorb each others complementary technology better. Corporate specializations help in inter relationships of companies. Okoli and Pawlowski, in 2004, conducted an extensive review of literature on the delphi method in order to clarify its role and popularize its use. Again it was seen that modifications were commonly made to the delphi method. They used it in the context of e-commerce diffusion in Sub Saharan Africa. They differentiated the delphi from a traditional survey. Dan and Xiao-na, in 2009, found variables that enhanced collaborative behaviour. The variables were - the companies general attitudes to collaboration, the reasons behind their collaborative initiatives (drivers), types of collaborating experience, types of relationship with other companies, the geographical locations of their partners as well as the success of their collaborating experiences against original goals or targets (results of collaboration). Conclusions were drawn on what Chinese companies looked for in collaborations with European partners. In 2008 Boutellier et al., used the term technology foresight and described approaches to study technology foresight in their paper. The outcome of such foresight and forecast studies was a series of graphics in the form of Technology Road Maps (Kostoff and Schaller, 2001, Vojak and Chambers, 2004, Petrick and Echols, 2004, Gokhale and Myers, 2007, Lee and Park, 2005, Vatananan and Gerdsri, 2010, Phaal et al., 2011, Geum et al., 2011). To summarize, researchers have extensively used the delphi method to forecast and provide foresights.Variations in the exact methodology are obvious. An outcome is a road map where in technologies are clearly put on a time line.
16
7.0 Methodology
Using the expert approach to read into the future, the delphi method was utilized with minor modifications. Figure 1 describes the methodology followed for this study.The delphi method was used mainly to elicit the R&D priorities from Indian visionaries.The figure shows the three rounds conducted during this entire study.The first round was the base round. In this round data was collected from the sample and this data was analysed. The results of this round became the input for the consensus round, namely round 2. In round 2 the validity and consensus about the data namely, the R&D priority list derived from round 1 was assessed.The results from this round became the inputs for round 3. Round 3 used an assessment from the perspective of investors. The interview design and the sample used in round 1 are described in detail in this section. More about round 2 and 3 are described in section 8.0. Figure 1: Methodology followed Survey question developed ROUND 1 of DELPHI Sample identified and screened ROUND 1 Survey interview method conducted ROUND 1 Analysis of interview data ROUND 1 Reporting of results ROUND 2 Consensus on results ROUND 3 Venture Capitalist assessments of identified priority areas for ICT R&D Panel discussion 1 Panel discussion 2
Summing up 17
Background research on the delphi method elicited large amounts of literature where the method was either evolved or used.What was apparent was that the delphi method is an assessment method which integrates the judgments of a number of experts who cannot come together physically (Linstone and Turoff, 1975). Yet, at the same time the method allows for feedback, debate and comment. The overall objective of this method is to achieve consensus among a diverse group of experts on a topic where there are many controversial or opposing views among researchers. It is commonly used in technology forecasting where quantitative data is lacking. Unlike the famous regression analysis that forecasts based on trend analysis of structured time series data, the delphi method probes the minds of experts to elicit future pictures that do not directly have structured data from the past to support their predictions. In its traditional form, the delphi method employs a series of survey questions to a selected set of experts. Responses are aggregated and the feedback is synthesized for the next set of rounds with the experts (Adams, 1980).There is no direct interaction among the panelists and all feedback and responses take place through the delphi administrator. The delphi method has been explored in a variety of areas which include forecasting sales, developing a list of policies, predicting the direction of IT industry, developing measures and definitions (Adams, 1980, Gupta and Clarke, 1996, Okoli and Pawloski, 2004, Kesten, et al., 2007). There are three key characteristics to be met for classifying a procedure as delphi.The first is anonymity. Panelists and their responses must be kept anonymous during the entire process of data collection thus avoiding the problems of group think. Panelists are allowed to freely express their own opinion without being forced to adhere to viewpoints of more powerful or dominant individuals within the group.The second is the role of iterations. Unlike other traditional group interviews, the delphi studies take place through a series of iterations where survey questionnaires for the subsequent rounds are refined based on the inputs from the previous rounds.The third is that of feedback. In between survey iterations, controlled feedback is provided to the participants allowing the participants to rethink their opinions. Feedback maybe provided in two ways. If the study done is quantitative in nature, such as forecast of revenue or sales, a statistical summary maybe provided. If the response requested from the participants is more qualitative in nature, the researcher may collate selected feedback and judgment, and this is provided as an input for the next round of interviews. In qualitative questionnaires, the first round of delphi interviews is typically open ended allowing the panelists to freely express their opinion. Subsequent iterations take place, till the researcher perceives that adequate consensus among the panelists has been reached on the topic. The delphi method is not without challenges (Stewart, 1987). The first challenge is about sample bias.The delphi results are strongly correlated with the diversity and composition of experts in the panel. If a diverse set of experts is not chosen, there may be considerable bias towards the agenda or research objective.The second is the researchers own bias. Since the researcher or the delphi administrator plays a key role in consolidating the responses and providing feedback, the process 18
is subjective to biases and views of the researcher. The last is that it requires a lot of patience on the part of the researcher and her team since it is a slow and lengthy process. The process may run into many rounds resulting in delays, or terminated by the delphi administrator as required. Further, since experts are being interviewed, there is likely to be delays in achieving face to face meetings, simply because experts are busy.
7.1 Design of the delphi interview

In Round 1 of the delphi method, the first step was to design the delphi for the SYNCHRONISER project requirements. Adopting the delphi method for the SYNCHRONISER amounted to deciding the following: (a) What questions will be asked to meet the research objectives of the SYNCHRONISER foresight study? (b) Who will these experts referred to as visionaries be in the SYNCHRONISER foresight study? Both these questions are answered below in the context of how the delphi method was used for the SYNCHRONISER project. For the success of a delphi foresight study, it was critical to secure the participation of diverse experts, who understood the issues of ICT R&D in India, have a vision, and represent a substantial variety of viewpoints. To achieve this objective, a panel of 30 visionaries having a very profound understanding of the Indian ICT industry was identified. Past studies using such an approach have typically used thirty experts based on the finding that larger groups generate few additional ideas and limit the in-depth exploration of the ones already generated (Czintoka and Ronkainen, 1997). The questions to be asked of the visionaries were standardized after much discussion within the SYNCHRONISER team. Such standardization was important to compare insights of visionaries and draw conclusions. Hence, while certain amount of flexibility was retained while probing the area with a visionary, a structured set of stimuli (questions) were posed to all visionaries. The mind of the visionary was followed and further questions were asked if necessary to clarify points raised by the visionary. Care was taken to follow this standardized procedure for all interviews. The procedure followed was as follows: (a) Assessed what the visionary said were the ICT R&D areas that will interest Indian technologists in the future. (b) Verified the above by obtaining details of why the visionary suggested these technologies. 19
(c) Assessed whether these technologies fell in the innovation space, in India or in EU. (d) Assessed if the visionary had EU proposal experience when he or she described the above. (e) Assessed other factors that might influence the IndianEU ICT R&D relationship for cooperation. (f) Made a judgment on what technology was suggested. Using the above assessment approach, the delphi method was applied for data collection from visionaries in round 1. The questions the visionaries were asked is available in Table 1.
Table 1: Showing the questions asked during the SYNCHRONISER foresight study interviews The main query posed was: What key technology/technologies in the ICT space you envision that Indian companies will research and develop in the next 2, 5 and 10 years? In relation to the above question, the visionary was asked to elaborate his or her response as follows: Why do you choose these technologies? How do you foresee Research & Development (R&D) taking place in these technologies? Will the R&D activity be focused on basic or applied domains? What applications do you think will be developed from these technologies? Will they be break through or incremental? Will the commercialization activity be dominant towards development of product or services for the above applications? Do you envisage open source platforms for the above technologies? Are these technologies new to India or EU or non EU countries? Do you foresee any changes in the ICT industry structure (e.g., new entrants, small players, foreign entrants, problems for existing incumbents, etc.) as a result of these new technologies? A short survey was administered to capture the awareness of the visionary to the happenings in the EU ICT Industry. The questions relating to other factors like regulations and consumer needs including how to improve the relationship were posed.These included: Are there any trends and preferences in Indian consumers that will influence the EU India collaboration? Do you think there is demand for EU derived technologies in the Indian market? Are there any regulatory issues that will influence the collaboration between India and EU? What are the ways of improving the current cooperation between EU and India (such as complementary funding or other mechanisms of support for joint research activities between EU and India)? The latest India-EU Joint Working Group (JWG) Meeting on Information Society, in Brussels, has arrived at cooperation areas for India and EU.The technology areas for cooperation are: IPv6 and NGN, Open Source Software, RFID, Biometric and Smart Card, India-EU research network connectivity, e-Infrastructure, Internet Governance, 3G Deployment, Frequency Management, and Universal Service. Do you foresee the above as important? Do you or your team members have experience in writing proposals for R&D collaboration with EU partners?
20
The questions were formatted into a guideline or questionnaire that was used during the interviews with visionaries. This guideline is provided in Annexure 5. For the first round of the delphi method, face-to-face meetings with all the identified visionaries were conducted. Interviews began with the question such as: what do you think are the technologies in the ICT space in India that you foresee will receive the highest attention in the next 2, 5 and 10 years ? The visionaries needed to justify why they chose these technologies. Each visionary received a copy of the guideline prior to the interview. The questions an expert was to be asked were formulated and a pilot run of the data collection was initiated with members of the SYNCHRONISER team. A modified version of the interview questions was made. Visionaries were not aware of other visionaries in the sample and privacy was thus maintained so that ideas were not influenced. It must be stated that there was a difference in the way a visionary saw foresight, compared to the intent of the researcher or the delphi administrator. When asked what India will do, often the answers came instead from the perspective of, I do not know exactly what India will do, but I am certain about what India must do. In other words being a large democratic country, visionaries clearly saw difficulty in giving an accurate trend of what such a complex country will do, since such a judgment is not in the control of even a visionary to forecast. Such a view comes from a pragmatic perspective that many other things can happen despite a prediction of what may happen. It is probably a characteristic dilemma of experts intending to predict, or possibly a characteristic of experts living in complex realities of developing countries like India, intending to predict.
7.2 The visionary sample

The sample of visionaries consisted of academicians (n=10) and experts from industry (n=20). The total sample of visionaries was 30. Since the demographics of the visionary sample was a critical aspect of this survey, care was taken to select the visionaries with a stringent criterion. A certain mix of the profile of visionaries was maintained to ensure sample validity and avoid certain errors. The criterion used to select the visionaries is shown in Table 2.
21
Table 2: Criterion to select visionaries The visionary knew the Indian landscape adequately. Care was taken to ensure that the visionary was sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable of the Indian ICT industry. A lack of this understanding will result in the visionary providing insights without a true and realistic picture of India. Hence, if the visionary was based outside India and worked abroad whether in USA, EU or any other country, they did not qualify for the interview. We chose to have visionaries who were home grown, and have been in India at least 10 years working in Indian ICT industry. Care was taken to ensure that the visionary did not project visions of world trends in ICT R&D as if they were Indias trends. Care was taken to ensure that the visionary did not provide insights skewed towards Indias business interactions with USA and USAs needs, as USA is a dominant client of Indian ICT business, but instead provided insights on what India needs as seen from within India and by being in India. Care was taken to ensure that the visionary spoke from his or her vast experience in dealing with the Indian landscape and not from guesstimates of a trend, colored by thoughts of other markets and world trends in ICT. Although it was expected that some of this will occur, other questions were asked to verify where the visionary was coming from in his or her dialogue.
For this study, the definition of a visionary was a person who has a minimum of 10 years of experience in ICT R&D activity. He or she must have this experience from within India which meant the individual should have resided in India for this period. Both Indian and foreign nationals qualify to be called a visionary in the SYNCHRONISER foresight study. The visionaries were from Indian companies, Indian MNCs, foreign origin companies, academia, and technology consulting organizations. Individuals from large, medium and small companies qualified. The visionary was one who could visualize how ICT will grow in the next 10 years within an economy like India. Visionaries were researched to assess if they have patents, have contributed to society significantly, and thus can be referred to as a visionary. Of the 30 visionaries, 28 engaged in direct face-to-face interviews with the research team, and 2 interviews were conducted telephonically. One key researcher conducted the entire 30 interviews together with a supporting team. Five visionaries were associated with foreign multinationals. However, all these visionaries were in India and worked with Indian ICT industry for over 20 years. Only 2 of these 5 were foreign nationals, namely the visionary who was the ex CEO of Philips Innovation India (European origin), and is currently the CEO of Palandrome, a startup in India. The second is the President and CEO of Korean Science and Technology Institute, who also headed the IT operations of a leading Indian ICT organization, L&T Infotech (Korean origin). Both these foreign national visionaries stayed in India for over 20 years and knew the Indian landscape very well and hence qualified for this study. 22
Their experience, designation, foreign MNC affiliations, education, organization affiliation sector, and gender are shown in Figures 2 to 7. (a) Experience: It was felt that the years of experience the visionary had in his or her career and in Indian ICT industry in particular was critical for validity of the response he or she gave. A large chunk, i.e. 15 out of 30 of the sample of visionaries had a minimum of 20-29 years of experience. Five had experiences of about 10-19 years, and 10 had experiences spanning over 30-40 years. Figure 2 shows this distribution. Figure 2: Showing the experience profile of the visionaries (n=30)
Years of experience of visionary
Count
20 10 0 10-19 years 20-29 years Years Count 30-40 years
(b) Designation: The designations of these visionaries were understood further; senior experts were desired for this trend study. It was assumed that a certain designation is indicative of the professional experience of the visionary. The designations captured in this study were Professor, CEO, CTO,Vice President and founder (startups after a stint in industry). None from the managerial and lower management cadres were used in this study. The designations shown in Figure 3 indicate a rather senior expert group of visionaries. Figure 3: Showing the designations held by the visionaries (n=30)
Visionaries classified by designation
15
Count
10 5 0 Professor CEO CTO Designation Count VP Founder
23
(c) Organizational affiliation foreign or Indian: Care was taken not to choose many
visionaries from multi-national organizations whose orientation was some other country other than the EU states and India. Nevertheless, 5 of the visionaries were from foreign multi-nationals such as SAP, Siemens, Philips, Korean Science and Technology Institute and IBM. The remaining 25 visionaries were from Indian organizations. Figure 4 describes this distribution. Figure 4: Showing whether the visionary had a foreign MNC affiliation or was from an Indian organization
Indian origin and foreign origin organizational affiliation of visionary
40 20 0 Indian origin organization Foreign origin organization Foreign/Indian origin Count
(d) Education: The education profile of visionaries showed a range of higher education amongst them. Sixteen of the visionaries had doctoral degrees. This implies that they had R&D and scientific backgrounds. About 9 of the visionaries had masters degrees and about 5 had bachelors degrees. Figure 5: Showing the education profile of the visionaries
Education of visionary
Count
Count
20 10 0 Ph.D. Masters Education level count Bachelors
(e) Organizational affiliation: Visionaries were carefully picked from both academia and industry. There were 10 Professors from academia and about 20 industry experts from the Indian ICT industry. All Professors had academic experiences only and industry visionaries ranged from large to small and medium organizations. Seven of the industry experts were from large companies such as Wipro, Infosys, HCL and TCS. The remaining 3 were from large organizations that were foreign multi-national, namely SAP, IBM and Siemens. One of the visionaries 24
was the ex CEO of Philips, but is currently the CEO of an SME, hence he is classified under the SME list. Figure 6: Showing the sector classification of visionarys organizational affiliation
Sector of visionary's affiliation
15 10 5 0 Industry large orgn Industry SME Sector Count Academia
(f) Gender: There was difficulty finding female visionaries in the Indian industry and special efforts were made to identify them. Four of the visionaries were female with experience in the Indian ICT industry.Twenty six of the visionaries were male. This is not surprising as the Indian industry is a male dominated one in higher levels of management especially amongst seniors in top management. Figure 7: Showing the gender distribution of the visionaries
Gender of visionary
30 20 10 0 Female Gender count Male
To summarize, the sample of visionaries in this delphi study were experienced, knowledgeable about India, working in the ICT R&D space for a long time, and were individuals who have displayed leadership in society.
Count
Count
25
8.0 R&D Trends for Indian ICT

This section consists of 6 parts.The first lists core technology areas that visionaries identified. The second part lists sector specific applied technologies that the visionaries identified. The third part consists of the societal and economic trends that will govern ICT R&D investments in India. The results communicated from these 3 parts are from round 1 of the delphi study. The fourth part consists of the consensus building rounds. This fourth part consists of results from round 2 of the delphi study. The fifth consists of few comments from the perspective of financiers (venture capitalists) with reference to these listed technologies. This fifth part is round 3 of the delphi study. The sixth and final part refers to the technology priority list provided by the Joint Working Group and the visionaries agreement with reference to these mentioned technologies.
8.1 Core technology development: Round 1

Visionaries listed core technologies that India needs to focus on. These involve basic and applied R&D activities in core technologies area as mentioned in Figure 8. These are technology development activities that are not related to a sector per se. There will be good amounts of basic R&D activity in these priority areas, implying that the university systems will play an active role here. Once the university develops such technologies, industry will take it further and apply it to a sector such as health care, education, energy, agriculture and such. Amongst the technologies listed, technologies of the mobile device were mentioned by many visionaries. However, the success of mobile technologies may relate to the proliferation of 3G and 4G and the penetration which is nevertheless growing increasingly. Core technologies that India will focus on in the next 2, 5 and 10 years include: (a) Internet access: allocation of bandwidth, last mile connectivity, convergence of mobile and internet technologies. Increasing bandwidth demands bring a pressing need for better utilization of bandwidth through efficient spectrum allocation, IPV6 methodologies, and long term evolution (LTE). (b) Networking technologies: large networked systems, machine-to-machine communication, cloud computing, wireless networks and smart networks. Since ICT permits the scope for devices to be linked to larger networks and thus communicate with each other, generic device specific protocols using embedded systems can be developed to facilitate linkages. 26
(c) Monitoring systems: sensors for measurement and remote diagnostics, low cost cameras, integrated with wireless networks and mobile devices. Since the population is large and phenomenal data will be lost if not monitored, there is a need to evolve low cost monitoring technologies, using DSP algorithms, many low cost sensors and error compensating software. (d) Cloud Computing Applications: Since there is expected large numbers of data, or what is today referred to as big data, cloud computing will push down costs and offer low cost storage, computing, analytics and accessibility. Core technologies developed for this purpose may facilitate further development and customization in specialized sectors. (e) Security algorithms for various systems and devices including the mobile.
Figure 8: Showing trends in India for core ICT development

Trends in core ICT development
15 10 5 0
Count
Mobility applications
Monitoring systems (sensors, cameras)
Internet and netw orks
Security Printed circuit technologies 3D printing
Cloud computing
Service accelerators (sof tw are)
Core technologies Count
8.2 Sectoral applications of ICT: Round 1

ICT solutions for various sectors like health care and energy were more frequently highlighted by visionaries. Figure 9 describes the visionary insights on technology priority trends in the sectors where visionaries felt ICT R&D will occur. Health care emerged as the most important area India will focus on in the next 2, 5 and 10 years. Visionaries did feel that some of the various solutions that will emerge from for these applications need not be classified. The over riding role of the mobile phone in these sectors is stressed often. ICT R&D Sectoral focus of India in the next 2, 5 and 10 years: (f) Healthcare: The important development areas within healthcare include: - Bioinformatics for better diagnostics, information management and retrieval. This area is certainly associated with cloud computing and algorithm development. - Connectivity and networking of medical devices (to be redesigned or 27
- - - -
newly designed such that connectivity is included). Smart medical systems with learning ability, patient monitoring systems, low cost monitoring cameras, and monitoring devices to capture and transmit data. Security in health care data management systems. Large storage systems and cloud computing Integration of medical data and monitoring systems with the mobile phone Telemedicine
(g) Energy: The important areas mentioned were related to energy conversion, generation, management and green environment consciousness. Specifically they included: - ICT for Smart Grids: India is moving towards convergence of ICT networks and the existing electric grids. A few applications include smart grids with smart metering, bi-directional information flows in networks, and distributed power generation. - Solar panel electronics, solar gadgets - Green devices, with low power consuming displays, storage devices, and longer life batteries - e-Waste management - Redesign consumer goods electronics with energy and green consciousness (h) Governance and education: There are many focus areas of governance that India will invest in, these are listed below: - Governance related to land records, digitization, database maintenance, secure storage systems - Person identification and tracking systems - Transportation identification systems and RFID - Banking identification - Mobile based payment systems - Education and skills training using ICT - Mobile applications for education (i) Gamification: This newer area was highlighted by fewer visionaries, but was thought to have potential both by virtue of user markets and development in India. These involve the use of gaming in various functional and activity related to entertainment. - (j) Applications in agriculture more from an information dissemination, analytics and retrieval in nature were mentioned. Other areas like 3D printing, distributed manufacturing systems (with connectivity in rural and less urban areas), and automobile electronics were mentioned. 28
Figure 9: Showing the trends in India for ICT in sectors

Trends in India ICT for sectors
20 15 10 5 0
Count
Automobile electronics
Energy and green computing
ICT of Healthcare
Education
Distributed manufacturing
Social identification
Sectors count
Some visionaries mentioned product integration collaboration.Visionaries felt that not all components of these sector specific applications need to be made within India. Some of the components can be bought from other countries like EU for example, and integrated into solutions here in India. It will not be necessary to reinvent the wheel in such products. However, some visionaries expressed that the unique application of these technological components and the identification of user needs will be more the focus of the Indian side of R&D. Language diversity will also have to be addressed, since Indian languages vary much, and so does literacy and per capita income in rural India. They feel integrating the rural areas is critical for the overall growth of India. Hence, ICT applications cannot be an urban agenda but must also be a rural agenda.
8.3 Socio-economic trends that will govern Indian ICT R&D in the next 2, 5 and 10 years: Round 1
(k) Cost over performance Indian consumers do not compromise on cost over performance (Figure 10). As the figure describes, Indian consumers want more functionalities and features at lower costs. Hence, unless development happens around this rule success of product/service diffusion will be low.
Goverance
Agriculture
29
Figure 10: Showing the cost over performance trend expected of Indian ICT R&D
(l) Low value high volume Indian ICT business is evolving a business model to serve low value and yet high volumes in products and services. For example, as the mobile penetrates further into the population of one billion the price of communication will tend towards zero.As mobile devices become more pervasive in the Indian population, companies will create mobile value added services at cheaper rates for customers. (m) Green computing and green device designs There is a strong need to arrest power consumption by developing more energy efficient devices whether in large storage, display technologies, embedded devices, or software systems. Experts felt that the country is conscious of minimizing carbon foot prints and designing ICT solutions around this theme. Visionaries were of the view that if India consumes energy at the rate the western countries have and are currently consuming energy, the world will become energy bankrupt in a few decades. (n) Dominance of software solutions over hardware Since the Indian manpower skills are largely rooted in software programming, algorithm development, design, and software architecture, Indian ICT solutions will capitalize on this trend and have a preference for software based product solutions over hardware based products.
30
(o) Consciousness about integrating rural consumers A large percentage of Indians live in rural settings with low literacy rates and poor per capita incomes (of about 1100 Euro per year). This strata of consumers need to be integrated into solutions and technology development, and their needs identified and enabled by ICT. (p) The language diversity challenge Additionally, with more than 300 living languages in India, language diversity poses a challenge in developing inter-operability of ICT display and interactive systems. Hence, unless the language challenge is addressed proliferation of ICT will remain low in these consumers. ICT solutions in India cannot be an English language solution alone.Although visionaries felt that Europe has a similar situation with multiple languages spoken in various EU member states adopting their language solutions into an Indian context may not be feasible, thus these have to be developed in India itself.
8.4 Consensus: Round 2

To validate the technology priorities obtained from round 1 it was necessary to assess for consensus and feedback on the obtained results. This was achieved by two consensus building events. In the first event, there were 4 participants in the panel discussion, and the discussion was coordinated by the delphi administrator who conducted round 1.Three participants were from the visionary group (sample in this report), and one was a European familiar with the FP activities of the European Commission. The delphi administrator presented her findings, namely the technology priorities obtained from round 1 to the panelists and the audience. The panelists had received inputs on the technology priorities the previous day itself. After this introductory presentation each panelist was required to comment on whether they agree with these technologies or not. Subsequent to the panelists presenting their views, the views of the audience (about 150 ICT industry personnel) were sought. There was consensus. There was no perceived deviation on the part of the panelists from what the delphi administrator presented were the technology priorities. The technologies mentioned in this report appeared to have acceptance from the audience also. One panelist stressed the importance of product innovation through (smart) technology integration. The panelist repeated the same technology areas in healthcare that were mentioned during her visionary interviews. She described 31
how she used to ask customers what they want to see in a mobile, whether a camera or MP3 player, clock, GPS, and a mobile phone. This integration is called a smart phone. She stressed the need for gadgets like the mobile or other stand alone gadgets that will help as a BP measure for example. The panelist stressed on a single gadget that can process data reaching the masses. The next panelist expressed that the ICT area is vast and each one will focus on something or the other. He chose to give a perspective on what must be done in the next 2, 5 and 10 years. He said one of our major challenges is education and it needs top priority from the Government. He felt we need indigenous solutions not developed country solutions. The other sector which he emphasized on is health care. He felt health care should be made accessible. ICT, medical electronics and its integration with ICT must help solve this problem. It is not so much about accuracy and confidentiality it is more about accessibility. Regulatory mechanisms for health care are needed for India.We will develop applications on mobile phones.We need to think of what can run on a mobile phone that costs not more than Rs 1300/-. He felt only such low cost phones can reach the masses. Less than 10% use smart phones and others use ordinary phones. The first step he felt was regulations for these devices. In 2 to 3 years he felt we need to have access via networks for all. After we put in place regulations and standards we should develop applications. Mobile is the medium, India will work on. And in 5 to 10 years India will need to fund and work on nano technology and its integration with ICT. The third panelist began his speech by speaking about Mr. Sanjoy Das Gupta and his vision to start this kind of conference (IT.BIZ) many years ago. Thats when the panelist and his team discussed the beginning of the Simputer, with Mr. Sanjoy Das Gupta. They had made a Management Declaration for ICT. One phrase from the declaration is that you need to keep local solutions for any three local problems. The panelist said, Money spent on those below poverty lines is about INR 80,000 crores and mostly by the Government, only governments can spend this kind of money. However, only 20% reach the beneficiary and the 80% is used for administration and other costs, not reaching the beneficiary. How do we make the money reach the right beneficiary? Can ICT play a role for this? Local solutions for local problems will only solve the problem. The Electricity bill metering product of Balaji is case in point. It was a dream in 2001. Now Balaji has put 50,000 meters everywhere. The technology was not fancy. Technologists think technology is a fancy thing and consists of 90% of the solution and the remaining 10% was other things. Ten years later, we realized that technology is 10% and 90% is something else in India, if we dont realize this, we will fail. None of the technology evolved in mobile 32
phones was developed here. However, we used it a lot. Our Bharathis and Airtels changed the Business Model and made everything, cost per minute. Technology not invented here is reinvented and used to reach 600 million here. Modification and customization is also required, not just innovation and R&D, which is possible in a few Institutes like IISc. The fourth panelist spoke from his European experience. He found that to some extent, there is a difference between Europe and India since India has real problems to solve. He works close to the research side and makes applications at the lower levels (not close to products levels and real solutions to real people like India is planning to do). He said that, the Computing systems market is rising although laptops are lowering. We see penetration in such devices. Tools that we use will have to change to meet the broader requirement. My mobile phone is smarter than my desktop today. He sees a convergence of technologies onto the mobile rather than desktop. He felt that the challenges are programmability, stability, efficiency, and legacy software migration. He felt security is more important although the Indian partners have a difference in mindset. He said that there should be more international collaborations to solve such problems and importance should be given to core ICT side and not from the sector side. In the second event, there were 3 panelists. The difference with this panel is that none of the panelists were visionaries of this study; they were IT experts external to this study and were asked to provide an external view on the technology priorities listed in this report. Each panelist presented their views on what should be the focus of India in the next 2, 5 and 10 years. Consensus on the findings of this study was remarkable. The panelists agreed with the areas presented by the delphi administrator and panel discussion moderator. One panelist expressed that in India presently, there are 3 grand challenges that India is currently facing and will continue to face for the next 20 years; these are utilization of natural resources, quality of education and problems in healthcare. He spoke of 4 steps that are common across these challenges. He felt only ICT can address these problems. The steps are: measurements (whether it be measurements of natural resources or healthcare, for example a patients blood pressure), second was that data is to be collected, third, was connectivity that is centralized in order to analyse, wired and wireless connectivity is implied. Fourth was that this data must be analyzed and further optimized. He put these aspects in ICT terms as process of connectivity, cloud infrastructure and massive computing infrastructure.These according to him should be the focus of the Indian 33
government and ICT industry for the next 2, 5 & 10 years. These overlapped with the technology priorities found in round 1. The next panelist, highlighted the fact that ICT plays a dominant role in almost all sectors and therefore there is a great need to encourage the growth of ICT. He mentioned that in India core technology for ICT has to be developed at a fast pace. He said that the two emerging areas under core technology for ICT that he thought will be the focus are: big or large data and internet of things (with network devices and signalling). Most of the people complain that big data is complex and voluminous and this needs to be addressed. According to him ICT for sectors or ICT for application areas would be e-health, e-governance, and e-learning which he termed social infrastructure. According to this panelist in the next 2, 5 and 10 years the following areas will be the focus in India: big data, real time data generation, communication infrastructure, building algorithm and data analytics with sector specifications. The third panelist, said that Indian government is encouraging certain high end technologies and the 12th five year plan and the 13th five year plan in the coming years will invest more in high performance computing (HPC), super computers (to develop large scale computing environment with innovative methods), cloud computing and mobile technologies with emphasis on reaching to village communities in India. He mentioned that there are several research organizations focusing on communication technologies and language technologies. Collaborations between European and Indian private educational institutions are being encouraged by the government. He said that the 12th five year plan and the 13th five year plan will also focus on skilled manpower development with ICT intervention or innovative training methods. Another important area would be smart grids technology where much research is presently going on in the Indian context. He also said that EU and India can collaborate in multi-language and language technology areas as both regions are multilingual. He felt that development of communication infrastructure will need 5 years and development of compute infrastructure will need another 5 years. According to him, 3 main areas that would gain importance in the next 2, 5 and 10 years are language technologies, communication technologies and computing infrastructure, respectively. The qualitative assessments in round 2 were concluded to be useful for the validation process. There appears to be consensus about the technology priorities identified in round 1. No one raised an opposing view regarding the technologies identified in this report.
34
8.5 Venture capitalists view points: Round 3

In the last round it was felt that the financier will be the best one to validate the technology priorities obtained in round 1 and validated in round 2. It was felt that if the venture capitalist found it valid to invest in these technologies then the list is one with wider consensus. Keeping this view 5 venture capitalists were approached. Only 2 cooperated in responding.The responses are described here.The first venture capitalist was older in age, and having more than 35 years of experience in the ICT sector and investments in the ICT sector. This financier is quoted as saying: The areas and trends identified are too broad and generic. It may be alright for academic purposes but not from an investment perspective. For example, who predicted social media growth or ascendency of cloud computing 5-10 years ago? In todays pace, a period of 5-10 years is too long.Though academic research has to explore long term areas businesses and investors look for short term returns. As India is a large country we need to investigate many areas and also tune to specific needs of our country as detailed in the technology priorities of this study. One area where India is doing a good job is to come up with low cost health care devices that have potential to reduce cost of service delivery. India can develop open source with commercial bent platforms like Red Hat and Hadoop that can push technology adoption faster. Another opportunity for India relates to build on current platforms like Android, Apple iOS, sales force dot com on micro-scale as marketing such products will be easy. The second venture capitalist is younger and with more than 20 years of experience in the venture capitalist arena. The words of this financier is as follows: As an investor, core technologies mentioned i.e.: I (c), I (d), I(e) and I(g) are areas of interest. I dont believe India has the institutional capabilities, capacities, processes and mindset to create interesting R&D or solutions in this category I.The Government needs to make enormous policy changes as well as make huge funding available. In the sector applications: All are interesting but again there are enormous challenges from policy, regulations and government involvement!. This round with financiers was interesting as it provided a reality check. While the investors did validate some of the areas mentioned they did not highlight any disagreement to the classification of core technologies and sector specific applications. Some core technologies were endorsed by them. These were monitoring systems and sensors, cloud computing, and security algorithms. Both venture capitalists supported ICT for healthcare as an area that India will invest in, in the future for ICT R&D. There was scepticism about the R&D capabilities of Indians. There was also a strong mention about policy changes and the role of government in facilitating such R&D oriented changes. Low cost development was also strongly supported. Thus, parts of the technology priority list evolved during 35
the delphi study is valid from the venture capitalists perspective.
8.6 Visionaries views on the JWG List

Visionaries were required to comment on the technology areas agreed upon by the members of the JWG representing the European Commission and Indian government in the last JWG meeting. The technologies mentioned by the JWG are: (i) IPv6 and NGN, (ii) open source software, (iii) RFID, biometrics and smart cards, (iv) India EU research network connectivity infrastructure, (v) internet governance (vi) 3G deployment (v) frequency management, and (vi) universal services. The visionaries commented on these technologies and felt that some technology priorities were more critical than others. Not all visionaries were willing to comment on all mentioned technologies. Figure 11 shows what visionaries felt about this list of technology priorities. Figure 11: Showing the importance visionaries gave the technologies in the JWG list
Verification of JWG technology priorities

20
Frequency
15 10 5 0
IPv6 Open RFID IND EU netw ork Internet Gov 3G Freq Mgmt Univ Service
Mention by visionaries
Of the lot of technologies listed by the JWG this sample of visionaries preferred to state that RFID, biometrics and smartcards were the priority in India. Some visionaries made comments on the technologies in the JWG list. These comments are quoted below: These are hardly technologies, some are regulations topics, they are generic and vague, and they have less of a research component in them. Yet another mentioned that, TRAI, the regulator must be consulted about these topics. This is a traditional list nothing new in it. I am not sure if these technologies are a goal for the collaboration between India and EU. 36
Open source must not be under such a collaboration, (implying that its an approach) open source needs lower infrastructure levels, most innovations come from open source. Some of these technology areas are relevant to a pure ICT company and not so important for those using ICT, say for bio initiatives. The implications of Figure 11 are many. The JWG from India and EU are engaged in deciding what areas of ICT India and EU might want to cooperate upon. The findings we have obtained show that the technologies mentioned by JWG are more in the domain of core ICT developmental areas. Applications of ICT are totally missed out of the JWG list. The focus of the JWG is more on internet access infrastructure management, and facilitation of mobile based infrastructure. Both of which are very critical to India and also mentioned by the visionaries in this report. The only challenge is that some of the developmental activities under internet access and mobile infrastructure, also involve standards and regulations which is an area related in some ways to R&D activity. Standards and regulations in India, related to telecommunications which can be a broad label for internet access and mobile infrastructure, apparently, is not very different from that of EU as stated by one of the visionaries in this report. This is possibly the reason for the emphasis on core ICT development in the JWG technology priorities list. Additionally, it must be stated that RFID, biometrics and smartcards are also mentioned by the visionaries in this report. This is the area that visionaries feel must have greater focus for R&D collaboration. The role of open source although popular with some visionaries received various view points on the way it must be promoted. On the one hand some visionaries emphasize joint ownership of intellectual property, others mentioned support for open source. This divide is echoed world over and India appears to only mimic this divide about intellectual property versus open source in ICT activity. The main point to note in the analysis of JWG technology priorities is that while this list is an important one as seen by some visionaries, there may be many more technologies to be mentioned for the India EU ICT R&D cooperation. However, the technologies mentioned in the JWG list are critical for telecommunication expansions in India and low cost high volume developmental solutions in these areas may benefit both India and EU. As one of the non-visionary JWG officials put it whilst this report was being developed, after all the technology list by JWG is only illustrative and it is not the only list to be followed.
37
9.0 Collaboration
Visionaries responded to queries on collaboration between India and EU member states. The views of all visionaries are taken into consideration at 2 levels. First, their level of current awareness about EU is assessed followed by their intentions to collaborate. A rating scale is used to assess this. Second, qualitative statements made by various visionaries from ICT SMEs, larger ICT companies and academia show where improvements can be made in order to have better cooperation between India and EU in ICT R&D. Suggestive measures to improve the collaboration are listed out.
9.1 Knowledge and intentions of Indian visionaries on EU

In order to find out the knowledge and intentions Indian visionaries had about EU 4 questions were asked. The first 3 questions asked if the visionaries had experiences with EU collaborations, had monitored changes in EU by reading information on EU via reading material and participation in conferences and whether they had worked with EU experts.The last question asked if the visionaries had intentions of working with EU in the near future. Analyses of these questions are presented below: (a) How do you rate your collaborative experience with EU in the above technologies? The current level of experience visionaries had with EU is seen in Figure 12. Figure 12 below shows that their experience is leaning away from a lot.Their experience leans towards none or some. In other words the current levels of Indian experience with EU are poor and insufficient to galvanize into an active one. More exposure of Indians to EU technologies is called for. Figure 12: Showing the experiences of visionaries with EU technologies
How do you rate your collaborative experience with EU in the above technologies?
8 6 4 2 0 None Some Part much A lot Rating provided by visionaries
Frequency
38
(b) Does your work experience involve monitoring changes occurring in the EU-ICT industry? The second query related to the degree with which Indian visionaries in the sample monitored changes in the EU ICT industry. It is clear that Indian visionaries will monitor changes in EU ICT industry only if they are aware of the Information and Communications Technologies being developed in EU and thus motivating their interest in collaborating with EU on these technologies.Again the summary of Figure 13 below shows experience in monitoring changes in EU is only some, part or even none. Indians do engage with EU ICT industry as mentioned by few visionaries during their interview in round 1, however these collaborations are in the arena of out sourcing and not R&D collaborations. One of the visionaries had mentioned that maximum revenues of his company come from EU and not USA, the company being in the telecommunications sector. Another visionary had mentioned that their relationship with EU is more to do with client-vendor oriented transactional relationships rather than a collaborative R&D relationship. While monitoring for vendor client relationships is occurring on the side of Indian industry in some sectors like telecommunications and chip design of the EU, monitoring for R&D activity in EU member states appears to be missing completely from the Indian side. Figure 13: Showing whether Indian visionaries monitor change in EU
Does your work experience involve monitoring changes occurring in the EU-ICT industry ?
10 8 6 4 2 0 None Some Part much A lot Rating provided by visionaries
Frequency
(c) Do you read EU trade journals, magazines, attend EU ICT related conferences? The third query related to active reading about EU ICT activities on the part of the Indian visionaries. The answer to this query appears to be closer to no reading or some or part reading. None of the visionaries mention a lot. Hence, unless an 39
active interest is created amongst Indian ICT industry members to pursue information on EU ICT R&D, the collaborative efforts will not increase. Methods to bring out an active interest must be pursued either at the industry level or the Government level if this collaboration must grow. Figure 14 shows the results of this query. Figure 14: Showing the reading about EU ICT activities on the part of Indian visionaries
Do you read EU trade journals, magazines, attend EU-ICT related conferences?

10 8 6 4 2 0 None Some Part much Rating provided by visionaries A lot
Frequency Frequency
(d) In the near future, do you have any intentions to collaborate with an EU partner? The fourth query is an eye opener and a happy one at that. Figure 15 shows a complete contrast in comparison to Figures 12, 13, and 14. Indian visionaries clearly have an intention to collaborate with EU ICT industry both at the academic and industry levels. Both academic and industrial visionaries share this view. One of the visionaries clearly stated that although we work closer with USA, our psyche is more matched with the Europeans, and our fore fathers worked with Europeans more. Figure 15: Showing the intentions of visionaries to collaborate with EU
15 10 5 0
In the near future, do you have any intentions to collaborate with an EU partner?
None
Some
Part
much
A lot
Ratings provided by visionaries
40
(e) A picture of hope Figure 16 is a picture of much hope. A comparison was made between the current practice (Figure 12) and the intended practice (Figure 15) and it was seen that Indians are very positive about collaborating with EU ICT industry although their current practices do not engage in information seeking about EU. Hence, since the intention is clearly identified as positive, the mechanisms to encourage this intention must be put in place. This finding in Figure 16 is an excellent one in a foresight study when two geographies are keen to initiate collaboration. The intention is shown in red color and the current practice of information seeking is seen in blue color. If the blue can also be increased, more proposals will happen between India and EU. Figure 16: Showing the current practice in blue and the intention of visionaries in red
Picture of hope
15.0
Frequency of practice vs intentions
10.0 5.0 0.0 None Some Part much A lot Rating provided by visionaries
The importance of the findings in Figures 12-16 is many. It means that Indian visionaries who represent the Indian ICT diaspora are not seen actively seeking information on the EU ICT industry. There must be reasons for this. Most certainly they have not been exposed to the benefits of this information seeking activity. If the benefits are made clear, then the number of proposals will certainly increase from the Indian side. It is important to do a similar study for EU and assess whether they monitor changes in India more than Indians monitor changes in EU. Nevertheless, there is much hope for collaboration as stated by Indian visionaries.
41
9.2 Suggestions from Indian visionaries

Regarding suggestions to improve the participation between India and EU member states in the area of ICT R&D collaborations, Indian visionaries made suggestions worthy of mention. Some points stated by them are critical of the European Commissions proposal practices and others are ways in which the collaboration can be improved. These insights will be important for European Commissions understanding of India. Much of what has come out in this section reflects an emerging market syndrome. Visionaries from smaller ICT companies like SMEs and start-ups clearly find the overhead of working with EU for funds difficult. Since these Indian companies are typical of the emerging market syndrome characterised by speed, impatience, desire for low bureaucracy and lengthy procedures, the highly procedure oriented EC proposal writing, is seen as a deterrent to joint collaboration. One of the visionary says, I have no experience with EU, but I am open to the opportunities available. I think the factors that will enhance this cooperation are the following: minimum overheads when working with EU members on proposals, avoidance of uncertain timelines, for example if one has spent bandwidth writing and modifying a proposal but may not get funding it is frustrating, there must be clarity in getting these budgets. Such overheads (time) will demotivate Indian companies, for us time is too risky, and I would rather get a real customer and get money, than spend time on such uncertainty. Specifically from the perspective of languages, one of the visionaries said, I dont know what has been done in EU in languages, since I have not worked with EU on this topic, also finding a large number of partners is unwieldy and not easy to achieve, but this is an EU requirement. From an academic perspective, one of the female visionaries had interesting things to say. Normally academics have a lot of freedom and work on something exciting. In the issues of intellectual property we prefer joint ownership. I have noticed that in visits from EU, they are very formal in their approach, but research needs personal networks. It is better if researchers (EU and Indian) visit each other rather than agents. I have not heard much about EC grants to collaborate. But if EU Professors come and give talks to Professors in India we will get interested. Unfortunately in Indian institutions we are not evaluated on grant money brought, so academics may not actively seek such money. But, student travel grants must be encouraged in these projects. Researchers are individualistic people, if we see someone from EU whose name we read about in journals then we get interested if that person comes to India and talks to us. Another visionary who is an SME had this to say. I had good relationships with EU companies Symbian initially. It was an outsourcing relationship and later on we worked on the core operating systems for the mobile, some of their EU people even came here to Bangalore 42
and worked here. We also worked with GE in Sweden, and a company in Finland. We had associations with Germany, Finland, Denmark, France, Switzerland, and Sweden. I have not collaborated for EC grants and only had vendor client relationships with EU. In the case of intellectual property sharing this must be made clear up front. Also how to value intellectual property and who will do what with the property is also to be understood. One of the EU multinationals felt that there is a need for EU to understand the Indian eco system and we here need to revitalize our system here in India too. Delegations from other funding agencies come and go to India to seek partners, EC does not do this. EC tends to be far too bureaucratic. One of the more senior academicians felt, matching grants from India will help in such cooperations. I feel the EC is caught in the processes and hence the soul is missing. Processes are important for evaluation etc., but the soul is missing. Having collaborations is not about more travel and this will not help, as no one has time, everyone must pause to think and conceptualize, rushing around cannot help. One of the free software expert visionaries felt that,There is learning in this collaboration. I missed my last proposal by half a mark, so we revamped the partners and got the project through. My experience was that writing had structure. It was nice to see the management and administrative package in the budget, someone has to oversee the project, project accounting is intense, i.e. it takes time, it is nice if EC simplifies that by making formats and templates for accounting. We were able to find partners but we need more information about the EU companies that are willing to collaborate, smaller ones are not known, some large ones are. Its nice if there can be an EU SME road show which can be a virtual album of small EU companies initially, and then later this can become a face to face EU road show. Likewise, Indians may have to do similar things, and Indian SMEs must collaborate. Another academic stated clearly that, there is a lack of awareness, EU should visit us and push for collaborations. I have not been seeing them push for it. We need to exchange this information much more and Indians will be receptive. USA is more aggressive about this marketing. Europeans are more closed and keep amongst themselves. As a commission we have not seen any marketing. Individual countries come and market themselves, but not the European Commission. SAARC countries come.There is a lot of scope for collaboration. Another academic stated that, the initial effort to obtain projects takes a lot of effort. After that, working with EU partners is nice. In my project there are two persons here full time to take care of all project related paper work. Another thing is the review process that EC uses, I think people who are qualified should review the proposal not government officials.The reviewer should have the same training and give the right feedback about the proposal.We have to gradually build relationships through faculty and students exchanges. Your social networks matter, how transparent the process is and whether you understand 43
the rules of the game matters. In USA I have a network but in EU I dont have such a good social network, but its a transparent system. Exchange of students is the best way to start these relationships with EU. One of the visionaries from an SME in the health care sector stated that, There should be an institution in EC that believes that collaboration with India is meaningful and giving value. We made attempts to work on the REACH standard for toxicity profiles of synthetic chemicals. This is needed for therapeutic and medicine oriented solutions. The EU will be held to this standard and animal testing will be restricting to essential drugs and so one needs a different approach to verifying these drugs, its an opportunity to predictive science. We hope to reach out to some EU companies and academic Institutes in the REACH standard; we tried to reach out but did not get a response when we reached out. We have not closed the door, we are already working with two institutions. Although we are more US oriented and trained that way, our parents had more European orientation like us who now have US networks. Another academic visionary had this to say, EU projects have too much of overheads, travel, and meetings, on the other hand the Indo-French relationship, (IFCPAR), with one French collaborator and one or two from my Institute is easier to handle, it is leaner. The UKERI is also easy to handle but they too promote large consortiums. Large consortiums are a drawback. The research community in India is not too large and for the small size of researchers we have here in India, there is money in India too for R&D.The Indo French model and Indo Swiss programs are worth looking at. In partnerships it is important to maintain equal partnerships and an Indian should not be made a lesser partner. We in India need money for infrastructure and not money for student scholarships.The model of collaboration should be worked out properly. The bigger ICT companies had this to say, There is much possible, look at the clusters of groups for Life Sciences in the Cambridge area. Although this is UK, EU has much inventive capability too. The Nordic areas have great capability in design, their designs are user friendly, and the people there are good at communications technologies. Indian ICT is on a develop and innovate cycle and not in the invent cycle which EU is in, and unless we are into invent cycles we do not go to some conferences, this awareness is to be made known. The top Indian ICT companies are already in these EU countries, we have a presence and we are aware of these countries. There are barriers such as culture and language, and interaction barriers (visa). We have less contact with EU countries from Indias side. European companies reach out to India, less. Oxford and Cambridge have an Indian forum. EU does not have such organized forums. Motivation for EU to look to India is limited. Fraunhofer has been around for decades yet they just made an office in India, so there is less push from EU to see India as a R&D destination. For example, in Cloud Computing or Frugal Engineering of Health, new entrants and entrepreneurial activities will happen. These will be in analytics, social media, cloud, etc., and in the services base such cooperation is unlikely. Indians will adapt to new technology changes as there is 44
awareness with Indians about what technology can do.The art of the possible is visible to a large part of our population, and the success of the mobile phone will determine how adaptation will happen. Its all about what I can do with the device or technology that is the much bigger deal. In designing the water filter for example we were able to get low value high volume. Awareness is needed with large and small companies. We need to stay in touch with the EU partners; else I do not know what I can do with all EU countries. Some European institutions have reached out to us. Different tiers of companies need different inputs. We deal with start up companies in France and UK. Another SME visionary in the energy for ICT sector said the following, to improve the relationship, awareness of Indias capability must be made known, and this exposure must be made known to EU companies.The level of comfort to do work with India in ICT is not so high in EU. EU is more closed to us, compared to US. For example EU knows India more as a software service provider, rather than an analog circuit chip designer. Another thing is the motivation to work with Indian companies is low because if EU companies work with other EU companies they get a tax break, hence Indian companies lose out this way, US does not do that. Indian presence in EU is not strong as it is in UK. US is a melting pot of cultures, a lot of Indians are there so it was easy to work with them. Another SME visionary in the telecommunications area said that, telecom technologies and standards of EU are similar to what India uses. Most of us have US exposure more because we studied there (education), this makes US collaboration easier, but in technologies and standards we are closer to EU. Another SME visionary also in the telecommunications area said that, the cost structures between EU and India are very different. Technology can be substituted with labour in India but when EU substitutes technology for labour the cost goes up, this must be understood. My company has more revenue from EU than any other country because its in the telecom sector. Another large ICT company visionary stated that,We will put in place a few employees dedicated to write EU proposals to assess how we can make use of this opportunity.There is a lack of awareness in EU about working with India. I feel fewer managers the better in a consortium, more the partners, more the governance and less the actual research. There should be mechanisms in place to spend the money in the right way. Need reviews through the journey. If few companies work successfully with EU this information will spread by word of mouth and more companies will join in project proposals that are governed well. The real issues are one of awareness: a 2-4 year plan is needed to target companies, doing general seminars will not help. These statements are illustrative of the things needed to be understood for the bigger collaboration picture. Summing up the suggestions it can be said that:
45
(a) Whilst, the European Commission is not likely to change its proposal writing and accounting practices for India alone, more training programs and workshops on proposal writing must be encouraged. Clarity about accounting practices must also be made clear. There is an assumption that India must make its own efforts at understanding the EU accounting procedures. This assumption can be avoided and hence, more clarity must be made during kick off meetings by the project managers, most often from the EU partners side in helping Indian partners manage the accounting requirements. (b) Since the emerging markets syndrome is going to be common across a few countries, it is possible that European Commission makes plans for fast track proposal assessments and feedback to countries with companies for who time is critical. It is possible to have a membership drive of such companies and evolve a new program for them. (c) There is a view that the European Commission does not market itself as much and marketing strategies of EC may help in countries like India. Road shows on EC activity in India will help. (d) The view that most of the activity in proposal seeking and submission is made by agents and not by researchers is also the view of the visionaries. Bringing university Professors from EU in various areas of ICT on a road show to India will make the difference an agent cannot make in this collaboration. European Commission can initiate practices similar to the UK practice of bringing top Scientists and Professors for exclusive talks in India. (e) A directory of EU companies interested in cooperating with Indian partners will help Indians find partners. Disseminating this information will help. (f) Lastly, whilst most of the suggestions appear to be to-do actions on the side of the European Commission, Indian visionaries also state that interest must be shown on the Indian side, to make this success happen. Since, large amounts of financial support is already available to Indian researchers from the Indian government, collaborative R&D with EU will require an extra bit of effort to make it all happen.
46
10.0 Conclusions
This study identified ICT R&D priority areas that India may want to focus on in the next 2, 5 and 10 years. The purpose of this study stemmed from the fact that proposals for joint R&D collaboration between India and EU in ICT were fewer in number, compared to other countries like China and Brazil. The European Commission has currently sponsored a large number of activities to sensitize India of such collaboration opportunity and the importance of it. This study is one such activity. It is felt that identifying technology priorities of India as seen by important visionaries of India, may help the European Commission revise and call appropriate technology challenges relevant to India. The findings described in this report can serve as inputs for decision making with reference to the design and policy around technology priority calls between India and EU. Hence, possibly a separate program can be considered for India and EU in European Commissions planning activities. Those R&D priorities of India that are aligned with the priorities of the EU have greater chances of making it to the recommended calls for future cooperation initiatives. It is true that some technology priorities of India are better funded indigenously from within India, and it is not necessary to look for collaborative funding in such areas. An example is the Indian languages and user interfaces relevant to our rural populations, some visionaries feel that such R&D activities can be indigenously funded. A total of 30 visionaries were interviewed in this study. The average experience of the visionaries was 20 years and they were individuals who understood the Indian landscape very well. One key researcher conducted the entire 30 interviews together with a supporting team. The conclusions of this report are manifold; the first is the main conclusion covering the technology priority areas for India. It is therefore hoped that these priorities constitute information useful to the authorities of both regions and more widely, to the European and Indian ICT communities. The following research topics are of interest to India and India may develop them further.The first amongst the topics are core ICT areas and the second, is ICT for sectors. These 2 classifications emerged as the 2 routes India will take into the future. It was interesting that a developing country like India mentioned core ICT areas, since most economies in such a stage of development normally prefer to focus on applications that are sector specific and not core technologies.This is so because core technologies require more basic R&D oriented activity and efforts from universities to do research on such areas, and in developing countries university industry relations are normally weak. 47
As far as core ICT technology priorities are concerned, India will mainly focus on the following areas: - internet and networks, improving access, spectrum and bandwidth management technologies - network management and wireless machine to machine communications - monitoring systems, low cost sensors and, cameras - embedded systems and semi conductors - security technologies, and algorithms as core solutions for any system that can later be applied in various applications - cloud computing and large data management, access, storage, distribution - systems on the mobile As far as ICT for sectors is concerned the main sectors mentioned are: - ICT for healthcare - ICT for energy - ICT for education and governance - ICT for gamification - Brief mention is also made about ICT for distributed manufacturing, 3D printing, and agriculture Where India is concerned there will be certain values that will underline ICT R&D, possibly because India is a developing country, conscious of costs and energy consumption. In other words, R&D activities in India will have the following areas of value in relation to society, economics and the environment: - India will prefer R&D related to low value, high volume - India will prefer to go green and lower energy consumption for all solutions - India will prefer software solutions over hardware solutions - India will be conscious of integrating the rural consumer into solutions - India will develop multi-language solutions Regarding the listed JWG technologies, visionaries are in partial agreement with the listed technologies of the JWG, but they note that, there are many more technology areas to add into such a list and this report has mentioned many additional technology priorities. The focus in the JWG list is more about internet access, management and identification technologies. Regarding collaboration enhancement between EU and India, there is a predominant positive attitude towards such collaboration from the Indian side. Some visionaries do also feel that the Indian psyche is matched with the European psyche in many ways and if efforts are made to work together success will be met. For example, both Indians and Europeans may be interested in together making long term, long lasting
48
relationships as professionals in ICT R&D. This stems from the observation that both Indians and Europeans are likely to prefer long term relationships as against short fleeting relationships as professionals.Amongst suggestions to improve the situation at hand, there is a request to expose European researchers, namely Scientists and Professors to the R&D communities of India, and this will motivate Scientists and Professors of India to engage in collaboration with them. Thus greater Europe to India cooperation amongst university systems will help. Currently, the exposure in India is more with European companies and less with European academia or European Commission fund seeking procedures academia can use in India. USA created an environment where Indians had opportunities to educate themselves there. They thus built networks and created a US-India collaboration opportunity over time. Encouraging student exchanges and education opportunities in Europe, including exposure to EU fellowships and scholarships available will help build an Indian human base that will work with Europe over time. There is a clear need to expose Indians to European Commission proposal writing, possibly through writing labs and other such activities, to engage the Indian ICT expert in understanding the proposal writing process of EU. Corporate organizations in India assume that, if this is started it will take few years (2-4) to catch up. In terms of the procedures, whilst Indian experts feel there is a great interest from the Indian side to cooperate with Europe, Indians feel there should be much done to lower administrative burdens in accessing European Programmes by Indians. Being a fast emerging economy, the level of human patience is low in India, and burdens of proposal writing become an overhead to Indian companies in such a situation. Also, there is a felt need that Europeans should demonstrate a greater willingness to cooperate with India as Americans do. Even large European players such as Fraunhofers have shown limited activities in India considering that they only recently set up an office in India. On the methodology side of foresight studies, rich insights were gained. First, is the use of foresight studies at the national level. Conducting a national level foresight study is very much different from that of a corporate level study. In corporate organizations goals and consensus are easily arrived at, as they are driven by a CEO. In comparison goals and consensus of national planning activity that too in R&D investments is more complex in a democractic government where a multitude of opinions exist and circulate. This is even more complicated when India is the largest democratic country in the world. Decision making is always more political, polarized and difficult to converge with fair consensus. This being the case, when 30 visionaries were asked to project R&D ICT trends of India, each presented their views based on their given technical backgrounds. There was therefore a 49
tendency for each visionary to say what India must do and not what India will do. Another point worthy of mention in this context is the use of road mapping techniques in a national level of analysis, and the need to generate a clear time line. Since, visionaries prefer to dwell on what should be done they shy away from committing to clear time lines. Thus visualization of a road map with mile stones becomes a challenge. Second, confounding this aspect of being unclear if India will actually do what they say she must do, is the fact that Information and Communications Technologies itself posed a complex problem because of its diversity. The ICT spectrum of technologies is vast due to the all-pervasive nature of ICT. Hence, a visionary whose expertise is ICT for healthcare will not be in a position to rank and rate sensor development that is low cost. This being the case the range of technologies mentioned by visionaries was large and thus, it was difficult to administer round 2 in true delphi mode. This is so because one cannot ask an expert in big data analytics for healthcare to rank or rate low cost cameras applicable to smart houses and energy saving. They simply will not do it, leave it out, or will rank it lower to their areas of expertise. A modified version of round 2 is thus described using the consensus method. Whilst, the delphi method has wide spread popular usage in forecasting and foresight studies, and thus was adopted for this study, when used for a broad range of Information and Communications Technologies at the national level of analysis, it has limitations in direct application. The use of the Delphi mehtod can be more relevant if the range of technologies was just ICT for network management, or ICT for healthcare or just ICT for energy and such.The visionary sample therefore will also have to be either network management experts, or healthcare ICT experts or energy ICT experts. On the other hand, there is a fear that silos will be created when using this mode of high specializations, and that cross pollination, so common in R&D and innovative product development, will be under played. However, the key researcher or delphi administrator conducting the visionary interviews can be sensitive to statements where cross pollination is being stated, pick these up and follow through with them. Nevertheless, the focused definition of technologies will help greatly when the delphi method is used in the future in the context of ICT. Cooperation on ICT Research with India is a priority for progressive open innovation approaches of managing excellence in R&D. The European Commission, the EU member states as well as India, can mutually benefit from increasing participation in common ICT research programmes. As shown in this study there are strong positive intentions from the Indian visionary side to collaborate with European Union in terms of R&D in ICT.
50
11.0 Bibliography
1. Adams, L.A., 1980, Delphi Forecasting: Future Issues in Grievance Arbitration, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 18, Issue 2, pp. 151 -160. 2. Ahlqvist,T., 2005, FROM INFORMATION SOCIETY TO BIOSOCIETY? ON SOCIETAL WAVES, DEVELOPING KEY TECHNOLOGIES, AND NEW PROFESSIONS, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 72, Issue 5, pp. 501-519. 3. Blind, K., Cuhls, K., and Grupp, H., 1999, CURRENT FORESIGHT ACTIVITES IN CENTRAL EUROPE, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 60, Issue 1, pp. 15-35. 4. Boutellier, R., Deplazes, U., and Loffler, K., 2007, MODEL OF TECHNOLOGY FORESIGHT:AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH, IEEE International Conference on Engineering Management, pp.7-14. 5. Brancheau, J.C., Janz, B. D., and Wetherbe, J.C., 1996, KEY ISSUES IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT: 1994-95, SIM DELPHI RESULTS, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 225-242. 6. Czinkota, M.R., and Ronkainen, I.A., 1997, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND TRADE IN THE NEXT DECADE: REPORT FROM A DELPHI STUDY, Journal of Business Studies,Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 827-844 7. Dan, W., and Xiao-na, Y., 2009, ON BUSINESS COLLABORATION PATTERNS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN EUROPE AND CHINA, International Conference on Management Science & Engineering, Moscow, IEEE, pp. 344-349. 8. FP World Programme Orientation, Proposal, 2011-2012 p.26, http://www. gtti.it/uploads/fp7-ICT2011-2012%20clean.pdf, accessed on January 2012). 9. Geum, Y., Lee, S., Kang, D., and Park, Y., 2011, TECHNOLOGY road mapping for technology-based product-service integration: a case study, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,Vol.28, pp. 128-146. 10. Gokhale, M.M., Myers, D.D., 2007, TECHNOLOGY AND COMPETENCE ALIGNMENT TO THE ROADMAP, IEEE International Conference on Engineering Management, pp. 118-123. 11. Gupta, U. G., and Clarke, R. E., 1996, Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A bibliography (1975-1994), Technological Forecasting and Social Change,Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 185-211. 12. Hayne, C.S., and Pollard, E.C., 2000, A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL ISSUES FACING CANADIAN INFORMATION SYSTEMS PERSONNEL: A NATIONAL AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE, Information and Management,Vol. 38, pp. 73-86. 13. Kesten, G., Scott, A. J., and Graefe, A., 2007, Methods to Elicit Forecasts from Groups: Delphi and Prediction Markets Compared, Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, Issue 8, Fall, pp. 17-20.
51
52
14. Kostoff, N.R., and Schaller, R.R., 2001, SCIENCE AND TECNOLOGY ROADMAPS, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 48, No.2, pp. 132-143. 15. Lee, S., and Park, Y., 2005, CUSTOMIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPS ACCORDING TO ROADMAPPING PURPOSES: OVERALL PROCESS AND DETAILED MODULES, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,Vol.72, pp. 567-583. 16. Linstone, H.A., and Turoff, M., Editors, 1975, THE DELPHI METHOD: TECHNIQUES AND APPLICATIONS, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. 17. Loikkanen, T., Ahlqvist, T., and Pellinen, P., 2009, THE ROLE OF THE TECHNOLOGY BAROMETER IN ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEM, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 76, Issue 9, pp. 1177-1186. 18. Okoli, C., and Pawlowski, D. S., 2004, THE DELPHI METHOD AS A RESEARCH TOOL: AN EXAMPLE, DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND APPLICATIONS, Information & Management,Vol.42, pp. 15-29. 19. Petrick, J. I., and Echols, E.A., 2004, TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING IN REVIEW: A TOOL FOR MAKING SUSTAINABLE NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS,Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 71, Issues 1-2, pp. 81-100. 20. Phaal, R., OSullivan, E., Routley, M., Ford, S., and Probert, D., 2011, A FRAMEWORK FOR MAPPING INDUSTRIAL EMERGENCE,Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 78, Issue 2, pp. 217-230. 21. Santangelo, D.G., 2000, CORPORATE STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGICAL PARTNERSHIPS IN THE EUROPEAN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 1015-1031. 22. Stewart, T.R., 1987, The Delphi technique and judgmental forecasting, Climatic Change,Vol. 11, pp. 97 - 113. 23. Turlea, G., Nepelski, D., Prato, G., Lindmark, S., Panizza, A., Picci, L., Desruelle, P., and Broster, D., The 2010 Report on R&D in ICT in the European Union, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, 2010, http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC57808.pdf. 24. Vatananan, S.R., and Gerdsri, N., 2010, THE CURRENTSTATE OF TECHNOLOGY ROADMAPPING (TRM) RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, Technology Management for Global Economic Growth (PICMET), Conference Proceedings of PICMET 10, pp. 1-10. 25. Vojak,A.B.,and Chambers,A.F.,2004,ROADMAPPING DISRUPTIVETECHNICAL THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN COMPLEX, TECHNOLOGY-BASED SUBSYSTEMS: THE SAILS METHODOLOGY, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,Vol.71, Issues 1-2, pp. 121-139. 26. Weber, M.D., and Kauffman, J.R., 2011, WHAT DRIVES GLOBAL ICT ADOPTION? ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH DIRECTIONS, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,Vol. 10, Issue 6, pp. 683701. 27. World 2025 Report: http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/theworld-in-2025-report_en.pdf, accessed on January 2012).
12.0 ANNEXURES
12.1 ANNEXURE 1: R&D trends world-wide in ICT Targeted opening in WP2011-12
ICT topic Future Internet FIRE + Living Labs Search Engine RFID, beyond RFID Green Cloud Computing Access to Cultural Heritage Language technologies Nano-, molecular electronics Quantum info. processing and communications Complex Systems Research Neuro-engineering Trust and security Instrument R&D, CSA R&D, CSA R&D, CSA R&D, CSA CSA CSA CSA R&D, CSA Type of activity Common/ harmonised standards Project twinning, joint test facilities Common/ harmonised standards Common/ harmonised standards Benchmarking, validation Raising awareness on standards, competences, tools Working groups, consultations, surveys Research, joint road mapping Industrialised countries US, Japan Japan US, Japan, South Korea Japan US, Canada, Australia, Japan, Singapore US, Canada, Australia, Japan, Singapore US US, Japan, Australia, S. Korea, Canada BRIC Devel. country, NMPC -
Brazil China, India Russia Russia, Brazil Arabic countries -
R&D, CSA R&D , CSA R&D , CSA R&D , CSA
Research, joint road mapping Research, joint road mapping Research, joint road mapping Common RTD priorities, project twinning, joint test facilities
Russia China, India
Brazil, India, S. Africa Russia, Brazil -
Micro, nano electronics, R&D, CSA and Microsystems Embedded Systems and R&D, CSA Control Photonics Flexible, Organic and Large Area Electronics ICT for Transport ICT for Health e-Government e-Inclusion Sustainable Growth R&D, CSA R&D, CSA R&D, CSA R&D, CSA R&D , CSA CSA CSA
RTD, dissemination, road mapping US, Japan, Taiwan US, Australia, Canada US, Japan, Canada, Research, Interoperable solutions Austra-lia, South and standards Korea, Taiwan Japan, South Korea, Research, Equipment Taiwan RTD, technology transfer, USA, Canada, Japan, interoperable solutions and Australia standards road mapping Technology transfer on Telemedicine ICT for Governance and policy US, Canada modelling Standardization, bench-marking on e-accessibility and ICT for US independent living /ageing well Harmon. standard, measurement US, Japan RTD, dissemination, road mapping
Russia, Brazil, India Russia -
Russia, China, Latin America, India Africa Latin America -
Source: FP7 ICT Work Programme 2011-12 Orientations, Draft report (ICT WP2011-12) Page 28, INFSO 08/2/2010
53
12.2 ANNEXURE 2: FP6 Projects in ICT in India

PROJECT TITLE FP6 Collaborating working environment for ageing workforce Cooperation between EU and India on safety End to End Reconfigurability (E2R) II Free Libre and Open Source Software-Worldwide Impact Study Future action on software and services based on market analysis of market evolution, effects of international factors and return on European research investment. Intelligent modular open source Platform for intercultural and cross-domain SME Networks Indian networks co-operation in IST with Europe INDIAN INSTITUTE PARTICIPATING Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, India. Tech Mahindra Ltd Association of Intelligent Transport Systems India (AITS), India Tata Consultancy Services Centre for Development and Advanced Computing. Indian Institute of Science Flame-Tao Knoware Private Limited C-DAC-Pune IISc ITSMA IIIT-B ITSMA IIIT-B CDAC -Pune RMG ITSMA Tata sons Limited Flame-Tao Knoware Private Limited C-DAC-Pune IISc ITSMA IIIT-B ITSMA Tata sons Limited Indian Institute of technology Kanpur Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Antrix Corporation Limited, India. Amrita VishwaVidyapeetham, India CHALLENGE AREA IST-2005-2.5.11 e-Inclusion IST-2002-2.3.1.4 Mobile and wireless systems beyond 3G IST-2004-2.3.6.2 To prepare for future international co-operation in IST IST-2005-2.5.5 Software and Services IST-2005-2.5.8 ICT for Networked Businesses IST-2004-2.3.6.2 To prepare for future international co-operation in IST IST-2005-2.6.4 Accompanying actions in support of participation in Community ICT research IST-2005-2.5.8 ICT for Networked Businesses IST-2005-2.5.8 ICT for Networked Businesses IST-2004-2.3.6.2 To prepare for future international co-operation in IST IST-2005-2.5.8 ICT for Networked Businesses
Mentoring Indian IT organisations in the participation in the ICT programme of FP7 Legal knowledge transfer accelerator for SME clusters and digital business ecosystems. My personal adaptive global net Monitoring And Addressing Synergies And Opportunities Between Europeans And Indians Intelligent modular open source Platform for intercultural and cross-domain SME Networks Indian networks co-operation in IST with Europe Legal knowledge transfer accelerator for SME clusters and digital business ecosystems. My personal adaptive global net Monitoring And Addressing Synergies And Opportunities Between Europeans And Indians Open philosophies for associative autopoetic digital ecosystems. Science, education and learning in freedom Wireless sensor Networks with self organisations capabilities for critical and emergency applications Greenhouse Gas and Air pollution Interactions and Synergies The Nitrogen cycle and its influence on the European Greenhouse gas balance Wireless sensor Networks with self-organisations capabilities for critical and emergency applications Greenhouse Gas and Air pollution Interactions and Synergies The Nitrogen cycle and its influence on the European Greenhouse gas balance
IST-2005-2.5.8 ICT for Networked Businesses IST-2005-2.5.5 Software and Services IST-2005-2.5.12 ICT for Environmental Risk Management POLICIES-3.4 Forecasting and developing innovative policies for The Energy and Resources Institute sustainability in the medium and long term The Energy and Resources Institute Antrix Corporation Limited, India. Amrita VishwaVidyapeetham, India IST-2005-2.5.12 ICT for Environmental Risk Management POLICIES-3.4 Forecasting and developing innovative policies for The Energy and Resources Institute sustainability in the medium and long term The Energy and Resources Institute
Source : http://www.euroindiaresearch.org/fp7_india_indiaFP6.htm, Accessed in November 2011
54
12.3 ANNEXURE 3: FP7 Projects in ICT in India

Project Acronym Project Title EUROINDIA Euro-India ICT Cooperation Good practices for European developers of advanced ICT enabled energy- efficiency systems Global RFID Interoperability Forum for Standards LivingKnowledge Facts, Opinions and Bias in Time Indian Institute Participating Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Federation Of Indian Chambers Of Commerce And Industry (FICCI) Challenge area ICT-2007.9.1 International cooperation ICT-2007.6.3 ICT for environmental management and energy efficiency ICT-2007.1.3 ICT in support of the networked enterprise ICT-2007-1.3-ICT forever yours
GENESYS
RMG - Resource Management Group
GRIFS
GS1 , New Delhi INDIA Documentation Research and Training Center, Indian Statistical Institute, India EIRC Consulting Private Limited (EIRC)
LivingKnowledge
SYNCHRONISER
Centre for Development of Advanced Synchronising the Computing (CDAC) Research Policy Dialogue to the Indian Dimension Software Technology Park of India (STPI) Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Enhancing the Impact of Euro-India Policy Dialogue and Promotion of Joint Research in Information & Communication Technologies (ICT) Multidisciplinary networking of research communities in FIRE Coordination and Support Action for Global RFIDrelated Activities and Standardisation - 2 Strengthening EUIndia collaboration in networked monitoring and control systems technologies Generalised architEcture for dYnamic infraStructure sERvices Femtocell-based netwoRk Enhancement by intErference managEment and coorDination of infOrmation for seaMless connectivity Trans-national cooperation among ICT national contact points FICCI Centre for Science, Development and Media Studies (CSDMS) Administrative Staff College India (ASCI) ERNET INDIA
FP7-ICT-2009.9.1: International Cooperation target outcome (a)
Euro-India SPIRIT
FP7-ICT-2009.9.1: International Cooperation target outcome (a)
My-Fire
ICT-2009.1.6 Future Internet experimental facility and experimentally driven research
CASAGRAS2
GLOBAL ICT STANDARDISATION FORUM FOR INNOVATION HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED*HTS INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY
EUCLID
ICT-2009.3.5 Engineering of Networked Monitoring and Control Systems ICT-2009.1.1 The Network of the Future
GEYSERS
FREEDOM
PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA*TELKOM
ICT-2009.1.1 The Network of the Future
Ideal-IST
INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGY, SOFTWARE AND MEDIA ASSOCIATION INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGY, SOFTWARE AND MEDIA ASSOCIATION
ICT-2007.9.3 Transnational cooperation among National Contact Points
EU-INCOOP
EU-INdia Fostering COOPeration in Computing Systems
CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR ADVANCED COMPUTING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
ICT-2011.3.4 Computing Systems
55
WIBRATE
Ideal-IST 2011
Wireless, Self-Powered Vibration Monitoring and HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS Control for Complex LAB PRIVATE LIMITED*HTS Industrial Systems INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGY, SOFTWARE Trans-national AND MEDIA ASSOCIATION cooperation among ICT national contact points Citizens Collaboration and Co-Creation in Public Sector Service Provision Trans-national cooperation among ICT national contact points Large-scale, Crosslingual Trend Mining and Summarisation of Realtime Media Streams
ICT-2011.3.3 New paradigms for embedded systems, monitoring and control towards complex systems engineering ICT-2007.9.3 Transnational cooperation among National Contact Points ICT-2009.7.3 ICT for Governance and Policy Modelling ICT-2010.11.3 Transnational cooperation among National Contact Points
COCKPIT
IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Ideal-IST 2014
INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGY, SOFTWARE AND MEDIA ASSOCIATION
TRENDMINER
HARDIK FINTRADE PVT LTD.
Source: http://www.euroindiaresearch.org/fp7_india_indiaFP7.htm Accessed in November, 2011
56
12.4 ANNEXURE 4: Budget distribution for ICT 2011-2012 in EC

WP 11-12 (including PPPs) 625 160 70 30 80 70 45 170 155 155 400 60 80 50 45 115 50 165 35 50 30 50 256 60 33 68 35 35 25 280 30 35 15 50 50 40 60 140 40 20 45 35 100 60 40 260 TBC WP 09-10 540 190 110 20 90 80 50 0 153 153 375 60 80 60 25 90 60 126 26 30 70 234 63 30 68 24 34 15 189* 20 10 0 25 53 37 20 52 35 0 17 0 88 49 39 171 61 Change 15,7% -15,8% -36,4% 50,0% -11,1% -12,5% -10,0% NA 1,3% 1,3% 6,7% 0% 0,0% -16,67% 80,0% 27,8% -16,7% 31% NA 92,35% 0,0% -28,6% 9,4% -4% +10% 0% 45,8% 2,9% 66,7% 48,15% 50% 250% NA 100,0% -5% 8% 200,0% 169,0% 14,3% NA 165% NA 13,6% 22,4% 2,56% 52% NA
1. Networking, computing and service infrastructure 1.1 Future Networks 1.2 Software, services and cloud computing technologies 1.3 Networking architecture for IoT 1.4 Trustworthy ICT 1.5 Networked Media and Search Systems 1.6 Future Internet Experimental Facility.. PPP Future Internet 2. Cognitive Systems and Robotics 2.1 Cognitive Systems and Robotics 3. Alternative paths to components and systems 3.1 Nanoelectronics components 3.2 Integration of smart components and systems 3.3 Embedded systems and cooperative monitoring and control 3.4 Computing systems 3.5 Core and disruptive photonics 3.6 Organic electronics and photonics 4.Technologies for Digital Content and Languages 4.1 SME Initiative 4.2 Language Technologies 4.3 Digital preservation 4.4 Information Management 5.Towards sustainable and personalised healthcare 5.1 Personal Health Systems 5.2 ICT for Patient Safety 5.3 Virtual Physiological Human 5.4 ICT and Ageing 5.5 ICT for smart and personalized inclusion 5.6 ICT for Governance and Policy Modelling 6. ICT for a low carbon economy 6.1 Smart energy grids 6.2 ICT systems for Energy Efficiency 6.3 ICT for water management PPP ICT for energy-efficient buildings and spaces of public use 6.4 Mobility and freight transport 6.5 Cooperative systems PPP ICT for the Fully Electric Vehicle 7. ICT for the enterprise and manufacturing PPP ICT for agile manufacturing and customization PPP Manufacturing solutions for ICT products PPP Virtual factories and enterprises PPP Design & product life cycle management 8. ICT for learning and access to cultural resources 8.1 Technology-Enhanced Learning 8.2 ICT for access to cultural resources Future and Emerging Technologies** FET-Open
57
FET-Proactive Horizontal Actions and special initiatives 9.1 International Cooperation 9.2 NCP 9.3 General Accompanying Measures (PCP, ..) Total
TBC 26 15 3 8 2407
110 26 12 14 1954
NA 0% 25,0% NA -42,86% 23,81%
* This includes the budget for WP 09-10 Objective ICT for Environmental Services and Climate Change Adaptation (24M) which is discontinued. Funding is reattributed to Objectives 6.1-3
** including exascale computing
Source: FP7 ICT Work Programme 2011-12 Orientations, Draft report (ICT WP2011-12)
58
12.5 ANNEXURE 5: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 1
Main Query: What are the key technology/technologies in the ICT space that you envision that Indian companies will research and develop in the next 2, 5 and 10 years?
In relation to the question above please elaborate the following: 1. Why do you choose these technologies? 2. How do you foresee Research & Development taking place in these technologies? Will the R&D activity be focused on the basic or applied domains? 3. What applications do you think will be developed from these technologies? 4. Will the commercialization activity be dominant towards development of product or services for the above applications? 5. Do you envisage open source platforms for the above technologies? 6. Are these technologies new to India? 7. Are these technologies new to EU? 8. Are these technologies new to the other parts of the world (non EU, non India?) 9. Are these technologies breakthroughs or incremental? 10. Do you foresee any changes in the ICT industry structure (eg., new entrants, small players, foreign entrants, problems for existing incumbents, etc) as a result of these new technologies?
59
Please rate the following do you rate your collaborative experience with EU in 1 How the above technologies? your work experience involve monitoring changes 2 Does occurring in the EU-ICT industry? you read EU trade journals, magazines, attend EU-ICT 3 Do related conferences? the near future, do you have any intentions to 4 In collaborate with an EU partner?
none 0 0 0 0
some 1 1 1 1
part 2 2 2 2
much 3 3 3 3
alot 4 4 4 4
Other Questions:
1) Are there any trends and preferences in Indian consumers that will influence the EU India collaboration? 2) Do you think there is demand for EU derived technologies in the Indian market? 3) Are there any regulatory issues that will influence the collaboration between India and EU? 4) What are the ways of improving the current cooperation between EU and India (such as complementary funding or other mechanisms of support for joint research activities between EU and India)? 5) The latest India-EU Joint Working Group Meeting on Information Society in Brussels has arrived at cooperation areas for India and EU. The technology areas for cooperation are: IPv6 and NGN Open Source Software RFID, Biometric and Smart Card India-EU research network connectivity and e-Infrastructure Internet Governance 3G deployment Frequency management Universal Service Do you foresee the above as important? 6) Do you or your team members have experience in writing proposals for R&D collaboration with EU partners?
60
12.6 Annexure 6: Sample List

Since the sample in a foresight is critical, the names of the visionaries from round 1 are mentioned below. Also mentioned are the names of experts who participated on the panel discussions of round 2. Lastly names of the two venture capitalists who responded to the technology priority list in round 3, are mentioned.
Indian visionary group

Name of Visionary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Prof. Ashok Jhunjhunwalla Prof. H S Jamadagni Prof. N Balakrishnan Dr. Bob Hoekstra Mr.Vinay Deshpande Dr.Vijay Chandru Dr. Swami Manohar Mr. Anant Koppar Mr. Anil Kumar Prof.Veni Madhavan Prof. Balaji Parthsarathy Dr. Mukul Saxena Dr. G Venkatesh Prof. (Ms) Varsha Apte Prof. (Ms) Kumkum Garg Mr.Vijaya Kumar Mr. Subrahmanyam Goparaju Prof. Sandeep Sancheti Prof. Anurag Kumar Mr. Gopi Garge Mr. Ananth Krishnan Prof. Partha Ramachandran Mr. Paul Jeong Dr. Kumar Sivarajan Mr. Manjunatha Hebbar Ms.. Chitra Hariharan Dr. Satya Gupta Mr. C. Srinivasan Mr. Ravichandran Mahadevan Ms. Pamela Kumar Organization Indian Institute of Technology Indian Institute of Science Indian Institute of Science Palindrome Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd Encore Software Strand Life Sciences Limberlink Technologies Ktwo Technology Solutions SLN Technologies Indian Institute of Science Indian Institute of Information Technology Siemens Corporate Technology Sasken Technologies Indian Institute of Technology Manipal Institute of Technology Wipro Technologies Infosys National Institute of Technology Indian Institute of Science Founder Free Software Movement Bangalore Tata Consultancy Services Indian Institute of Science Indo Korean R&D Center Tejas Networks HCL Technologies Concept2Silicon Indian Semiconductor Association Cosmic Circuits SAP IBM India
61
Panel discussion experts

Panel discussion 1 Delphi administrator and panel discussion moderator Panelists 1 Dr. Swami Manohar 2 Mr. Ananth Koppar 3 Mrs. Chitra Hariharan 4 Dr. Sotiris Ioannidis Panel discussion 2 Delphi administrator and panel discussion moderator Panelists 1 Mr.Vinod P Deshmukh 2 Mr. Raghuveer B K 3 Mr Ganga Prasad
Prof Mary Mathew, Indian Institute of Science
LimberLink Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ktwo technologies Pvt. Ltd Concept2silicon Institute of Computer Science of the Foundation for Research and Technology Prof Mary Mathew, Indian Institute of Science
MindTree Technologies Pvt Ltd. Infosys TCS
Venture capitalists
1 2 Dr Sridhar Mitta Mr Sanjay Anandaram CEO, Next Wealth Co Founder, Jumpstartup
62

Foresight Study ICT R&amp;D Trends in India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foresight Study ICT R&amp;D Trends in India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foresight Study ICT R&D Trends in India